Calvinism and how to discuss it without debate

They cannot see it or they would embrace it. = they attack it in their ignorance.

 

That was not my question. I asked, "When you encounter a post where Calvinism is being attacked, how should you respond to it?"

 

How about a "Reformed Baptist" section?

 

With pity and compassion.

 

In the truth of the scriptures, quoting them and not using writers and even Confessions at first! And doing it in tact...

 

I think love and compassion just as you would help a blind man cross the street.

 

Are you serious

OH! ouch the insults. Yeah your a Calvinist and can;t take a Joke with out insults. At least freewillers know they are saved Calvinist on the other hand, not so much, because they have no Idea if they are elect and everyone knows You can't be saved with out being elect. By the way Congrat's on using your password for an avatar.Hehehehehehehehe.
MB.

 

So would this be an example of how semi-Pellegians "take a joke" or just an "ouch the insults"?

PS: there is a simple litmus test for being "elect" ... a direct link between "loving God" and "being called":

[Romans 8:28-30]
[NLT] 28 And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them. 29 For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And having called them, he gave them right standing with himself. And having given them right standing, he gave them his glory.

[NIV] 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

[NASB] 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

[KJV] 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

For the record I know of no one who holds to free will that believes calvies can't know if they are elect. Such a claim is made by an outlier and far from the norm.

 

See what I mean falsely accusing me of being a semi-Pellegians Not my spelling but yours. Notice the above passage is to those who love God and it is only because they love God that they are called and predestined to be conformed to His likeness. No election in this however being predestined and conformed doesn't happen until after Salvation. Notice it's for those who love God. Are Calvinist loving God when they take His word apart and reinterpret it and add and subtract from it to fit there man centered doctrines?
MB

 

Thank you for your honesty.
Unfortunately, there are also plenty of outliers clinging to the "Calvie" camp as well saying stupid things about what "free willers" believe. I came out of Atheism, through the Church of God and into Reformed Baptist ... so I both know Weleyeanism and have nothing but respect for those that sincerely hold to the free will (enabling grace) view. [I have some problem with people that think they are sinless, that is a contra-biblical view.]

I tend to lean towards the Moravian Motto of "In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things charity." ... although I don't walk it as well as I should. I still have a strong "tit for tat" old nature.

 

Well I tend to believe the whole calvies cant know if they are elect is disingenuous

 

I apologize for the spelling error that offended you.

With respect to the claim that you hold a semi-Pelagian view, here is a definition of Semi-Pelagianism from CARM:

Semi-Pelagianism is a weaker form of Pelagianism (a heresy derived from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome). Semi-Pelagianism (advocated by Cassian at Marseilles, 5th Century) did not deny original sin and its effects upon the human soul and will; but, it taught that God and man cooperate to achieve man's salvation. This cooperation is not by human effort as in keeping the law but rather in the ability of a person to make a free will choice.​

Do you deny original sin and believe in salvation by keeping the law? If so, then you would be Pelagian, but I was not under the impression that you believed this from your posts.

Do you believe that people cooperate with God in salvation by man making a free will choice to accept or reject God's salvation? That would be semi-Pelagianism. Your frequent references to "free will" and "you chose" led me to believe that you held the "free will" position. If this is not your view, then I apologize for mislabeling you, and if this is your view then the term "semi-Pelagian" may be applicable.

With respect to reading and interpreting God's word ... Paragraphs are your friend.

 

Why leave out those that think 4 or the 5 points of the TULIP are bogus, but also believe several points of Arminianism are bogus. Sounds like an exclusion policy to me.

 

Because someone wanted to start a discussion on the merits of supralapsarianism (the doctrine that God decreed both election and reprobation prior to creation and then allowed the fall of man as a means of carrying out his divine purposes) vs infralapsarianism (the doctrine that God foresaw and permitted the fall of man and that after the fall he then decreed election as a means of saving some of the human race) without having to deal with a flood of anti-Calvinist posts that would have NOTHING to do with what is a purely Calvinist vs Calvinist theological discussion.

It is exclusionary, just as the "Baptist Only" area allows conversations that deliberately exclude atheists and non-Baptists from turning every topic into "prove that God exists" or an argument about the "True Church" or the "Virgin Mary".

 

That was not the issue, the view has a special place for Calvinists, and a special place for Arminians, and no place for those who accept the bible without alteration.

 

"those who accept the bible without alteration"

Like the Mormons, who started over with a fresh revelation, or the Catholic Church with its rich tradition to help it "correctly divide" the word according to Apostolic authority?

EVERYONE believes they have correctly interpreted the bible without alteration, so to set yourself above THEOLOGY is just hubris.